A review petition may be allowed if an involved party was not heard, impacting the fairness of the judgment.

O R D E R

The review petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 18.12.2025 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.26457 of 2025. The writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:

“3. It is now submitted that the 2^nd respondent considered the matter and has now passed Ext.P16 order directing the Board to reconsider the transfer order imposed on the petitioner. The said transfer order stands set aside also. In view of the above, no further reliefs are necessary in this writ petition.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 5^th respondent to implement Ext.P16 order within period of one month.”

2. The review petitioner, who is the 5^th respondent in the writ petition, submits that the writ petition was called out of turn by this Court and therefore the 5^th respondent could not appear in the matter. It is in those circumstances that the judgment happened to be passed.

3. The review petitioner submits that he has a revisional remedy against Ext.P16 order. Therefore, the direction in the judgment dated 18.12.2025 to implement Ext.P16 within a period of one month will cause hardship to the review petitioner.

4. The counsel for the writ petitioner resisted the review petition. The counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the writ petition was pending for sometime and even after issuance of Ext.P16, the review petitioner did not take any steps to file revision petition before the Government. Now, this Court has directed to implement Ext.P16 within a period of one month. The review petition has been filed after obtaining a copy of the judgment in the writ petition. The review petition is therefore without any merit and it is only to be dismissed, contends the counsel for the writ petitioner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. I have also heard the learned Government Pleader representing the departmental authorities.

6. The writ petition (W.P.(C) No.26457 of 2025) was disposed of as the 2^nd respondent in the writ petition had considered the matter and passed Ext.P16 order. In that view of the matter, the writ petition was closed. However, incidentally, this Court directed that the 5^th respondent should implement Ext.P16 order within a period of one month. Such direction was given, overlooking the fact that the review petitioner has a revisional remedy against Ext.P16 order.

7. The review petition is allowed. As the judgment was passed without hearing the review petitioner, the judgment dated 18.12.2025 in W.P.(C) No.26457 of 2025 is recalled.

The writ petition is restored to file.

Sd/-